The mere fact that these people are gifting the future to China should be the issue. Conservatives are merely conserving the oil industry's dollars for the next few decades. That's it. And then what? There are so many arguments to make just on this front.
What's really depressing is that the Trump solution and the so-called "green" solution of clean energy are both bad. With the Trump solution, dirty energy is kept going and we pollute more. With the green solution, energy becomes cheaper and that in the long run accelerates economic development. Which means more AI datacenters, more scientific development, and more technological progress.
And encouraging that technological progress still eventually means more habitat destruction. It means economic development in poorer countries, which in turn means larger houses constructed for an expanding population there, who undoubtedly will want a share of the addictive Western lifestyle, which is likely to make the entire situation worse.
Even if the democrats were to gain power and do the maximum they could do get solar power adopted, I still would be depressed about the entire situation, because the one thing that is kept constant regardless of whether idiot Trump is in charge or the Democrats are in charge is: destructive technological growth. The only thing that changes is who gets the bigger slice of the pie and which small problems are ameliorated first.
What I'd like to see is a hardline, uncompromising approach to using LESS energy, not just finding the cleanest source to use as much as possible, which is what mainstream environmentalists do.
You say that:
> You can debate whether or not we need new AI data centers
Fact is, anyone who has this weak, compromising approach has already compromised too much with the big tech oligarchy. And that compromise is enough to keep the technological destruction going.
There's a reason Democrats lost and Trump won: Trump is uncompromising, and people like that. What Democrats need to do is take an uncompromising approach to climate change and just tell the truth. And the truth is that we need to use LESS energy because that is the right thing to do. Not just play dead and promise that the energy need can be met with solar panels.
Energy usage on the current level is wrong, both morally and practically. And if you just ignore the fact that all this technological development is exactly the problem that caused climate change in the first place, the only thing you could ever hope to win (once and a while) is the next election. But never a win for the planet, in the long run.
The articulated plan is wind and solar plus battery back up. But when you peel away the optics and look at the numbers, it can’t work. 2 to 4 weeks back up would be realistically necessary in most major industrialized countries. When you get to that duration of battery back up the economics and the resource requirements undo the optics.
Just saying "neo-Malthusian" doesn't really imply anything one way or the other. Malthus's prediction didn't come to pass, but the problems implied by my post are already happening: habitat destruction and unacceptable levels of CO2. The mainstream green solution only encourages that further, albeit at a CO2 output that may or may not be slightly reduced (and it may not be given that every time more energy is added to the grid, technology takes more of it).
Exactly. Using less energy globally is the only event that would slow tech/consumer/industrial development & somewhat reduce the growth rate of emissions.
But we know this isn't going to happen no matter who is in power. Whomever is in power will always make it their solemn promise & policy to bring to market as much energy as required to meet skyrocketing demand, FFs being the only energy source that qualifies for the job. Democrats are committed to this path as are all politicians. Using less energy means voluntarily shrinking economic activity. No one in power is going to suggest that path. The math is simple:
FFs are ~80% of TOTAL energy and the power sector is only ~20%. Of that 20%, renewable contribution to electricity is about 40% with wind & solar contributing ~16%. The greater part is coming from hydro & nuclear. And ~60% of electricity is still coal & gas generation. In other words, electricity is a small part of total energy, and renewables are a small part of electricity. Even if wind & solar made power generation 100% "renewable", 80% of total energy would still be FFs. The idea that more renewable tech can replace FFs & bring down emissions is flat out ludicrous, dangerously myopic and, at this point, a WILLFULLY ignorant delusion. Not an argument people in the clean energy camp want to hear.
Bill, an excellent compilation of the destructiveness of Trump administration policy supported by many good examples. Large-D and small-d democratic candidates for office are winning elections because they are simply promising to give Americans what they really want vs what they're actually getting now. Thanks for helping to keep it going!
McKibben strikes again with another well-researched thunderbolt that not only flattens the Liar-in-Chief but puts his energy debacle in a hopeful political context. Now let's see if the Democrats get the memo.
Bill, America loves electricity so much that it electrocutes the good paths. Dang, we should import all the BYDs we can with a reverse tariff of $100/vehicle payable to the BYD assemblers
Evidence that solar produces low energy bills (in Washington state where power is pretty cheap to start with) - with panels on my roof and contributing to a Community Solar project, my energy bill this month is -$140!! And that is with two EVs. Full disclosure, in the winter it goes in the opposite direction, but that is where some investment on the demand side (weatherization, heat pumps, smart EV charging etc...) would really help (another area currently getting rolled back).
Electric 💡⚡ 💵💸 bills are seen by voters every month. The Trump 🐪👿 refrain, " Who ya gonna believe me or Yer 🦁 lyin' 👀 eyes ??"... Dat 🐶 dog won't hunt. Perhaps he can build a 🆕 coal plant ☘️ next to Mara Lago ?? ☀️ Sunshine is the best disinfectant...
Growing up here in West Michigan (5 miles from my current home), there were 5 coal-fired power plants within a 20 mile radius. They've all been decommissioned except for the largest, the J H Campbell power plant north of Holland. That one was scheduled to be shut down this summer - until Dr. Coal in DC overruled Consumer's Energy Corporation, a company that is about as un-woke as they come but knows how to do basic accounting. So the Campbell plant continues to burn coal, and Michigan residents like me will have to pay for it.
“Under my administration, we will be slashing energy and electricity prices by half within 12 months, at a maximum 18 months" - riiggghhhtt - and Mexico handed us the cash to pay for that big beautiful wall, didn't they? Because gollee-gee, Trump wouldn't lie to us, would he? I mean, he's not like all those politicians who tell us a big pack of lies just to get themselves elected, right? <insert eye-roll emoji>
As for the Dems - I'm guessing they'll be one step closer to perfecting the art of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory in the 2026 election. We have by far the worst president in the history of this nation, and the Dems still manage to have a lower approval rating than he does - I see Schumer's approval rating is just below global thermonuclear war.
Hmm. Wonder what would happen if we stopped allowing elections to be bought?
Love this: "Trump’s crusade against clean energy is obviously idiotic—windmills don’t cause cancer. But it’s more than idiotic—it’s the reason you’re paying more for electricity."
The mere fact that these people are gifting the future to China should be the issue. Conservatives are merely conserving the oil industry's dollars for the next few decades. That's it. And then what? There are so many arguments to make just on this front.
What's really depressing is that the Trump solution and the so-called "green" solution of clean energy are both bad. With the Trump solution, dirty energy is kept going and we pollute more. With the green solution, energy becomes cheaper and that in the long run accelerates economic development. Which means more AI datacenters, more scientific development, and more technological progress.
And encouraging that technological progress still eventually means more habitat destruction. It means economic development in poorer countries, which in turn means larger houses constructed for an expanding population there, who undoubtedly will want a share of the addictive Western lifestyle, which is likely to make the entire situation worse.
Even if the democrats were to gain power and do the maximum they could do get solar power adopted, I still would be depressed about the entire situation, because the one thing that is kept constant regardless of whether idiot Trump is in charge or the Democrats are in charge is: destructive technological growth. The only thing that changes is who gets the bigger slice of the pie and which small problems are ameliorated first.
What I'd like to see is a hardline, uncompromising approach to using LESS energy, not just finding the cleanest source to use as much as possible, which is what mainstream environmentalists do.
You say that:
> You can debate whether or not we need new AI data centers
Fact is, anyone who has this weak, compromising approach has already compromised too much with the big tech oligarchy. And that compromise is enough to keep the technological destruction going.
There's a reason Democrats lost and Trump won: Trump is uncompromising, and people like that. What Democrats need to do is take an uncompromising approach to climate change and just tell the truth. And the truth is that we need to use LESS energy because that is the right thing to do. Not just play dead and promise that the energy need can be met with solar panels.
Energy usage on the current level is wrong, both morally and practically. And if you just ignore the fact that all this technological development is exactly the problem that caused climate change in the first place, the only thing you could ever hope to win (once and a while) is the next election. But never a win for the planet, in the long run.
McKibben has said similar constantly. Politics is a business not a workable solution.
People matter: mental illness grows faster than progress. Progress yields more of what some are working against: weather, crime, housing.
Question: does anyone have a plan when the sun & the wind become a non-entity?
I liked your rational.
The articulated plan is wind and solar plus battery back up. But when you peel away the optics and look at the numbers, it can’t work. 2 to 4 weeks back up would be realistically necessary in most major industrialized countries. When you get to that duration of battery back up the economics and the resource requirements undo the optics.
we don't need any more infringement on our fundamental rights https://open.substack.com/pub/outlawedbyjp/p/a-dark-cloud-lingers-the-evil-youre?r=1jksj5&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=false
Kinda neo-Malthusian if we’re being honest.
Or Unabombery vibes.
Just saying "neo-Malthusian" doesn't really imply anything one way or the other. Malthus's prediction didn't come to pass, but the problems implied by my post are already happening: habitat destruction and unacceptable levels of CO2. The mainstream green solution only encourages that further, albeit at a CO2 output that may or may not be slightly reduced (and it may not be given that every time more energy is added to the grid, technology takes more of it).
Exactly. Using less energy globally is the only event that would slow tech/consumer/industrial development & somewhat reduce the growth rate of emissions.
But we know this isn't going to happen no matter who is in power. Whomever is in power will always make it their solemn promise & policy to bring to market as much energy as required to meet skyrocketing demand, FFs being the only energy source that qualifies for the job. Democrats are committed to this path as are all politicians. Using less energy means voluntarily shrinking economic activity. No one in power is going to suggest that path. The math is simple:
FFs are ~80% of TOTAL energy and the power sector is only ~20%. Of that 20%, renewable contribution to electricity is about 40% with wind & solar contributing ~16%. The greater part is coming from hydro & nuclear. And ~60% of electricity is still coal & gas generation. In other words, electricity is a small part of total energy, and renewables are a small part of electricity. Even if wind & solar made power generation 100% "renewable", 80% of total energy would still be FFs. The idea that more renewable tech can replace FFs & bring down emissions is flat out ludicrous, dangerously myopic and, at this point, a WILLFULLY ignorant delusion. Not an argument people in the clean energy camp want to hear.
True. That is why we should not rely only on political change to change anything. A greater revolution is necessary.
Well done Bill☀️👏
I found myself laughing at your line about blotting out the sun (and my husband asked what was so funny).
I shared your post on Mastodon and BlueSky.
Bill, an excellent compilation of the destructiveness of Trump administration policy supported by many good examples. Large-D and small-d democratic candidates for office are winning elections because they are simply promising to give Americans what they really want vs what they're actually getting now. Thanks for helping to keep it going!
Really?
Why did I add a #energy topic my Substack blog?
https://open.substack.com/pub/thewhyexplained/p/why-am-i-adding-the-energy-topic?r=1zyu0j&utm_medium=ios
Vital we know energy drives all #economic activity
You don’t have to be a energy engineer to grasp what sources available today and especially long term for #Sustainable prosperity
#sustainability
McKibben strikes again with another well-researched thunderbolt that not only flattens the Liar-in-Chief but puts his energy debacle in a hopeful political context. Now let's see if the Democrats get the memo.
Bill, America loves electricity so much that it electrocutes the good paths. Dang, we should import all the BYDs we can with a reverse tariff of $100/vehicle payable to the BYD assemblers
Evidence that solar produces low energy bills (in Washington state where power is pretty cheap to start with) - with panels on my roof and contributing to a Community Solar project, my energy bill this month is -$140!! And that is with two EVs. Full disclosure, in the winter it goes in the opposite direction, but that is where some investment on the demand side (weatherization, heat pumps, smart EV charging etc...) would really help (another area currently getting rolled back).
He's shockingly dumb about many, many things, but THIS one has the potential to destroy the planet.
Electric 💡⚡ 💵💸 bills are seen by voters every month. The Trump 🐪👿 refrain, " Who ya gonna believe me or Yer 🦁 lyin' 👀 eyes ??"... Dat 🐶 dog won't hunt. Perhaps he can build a 🆕 coal plant ☘️ next to Mara Lago ?? ☀️ Sunshine is the best disinfectant...
Growing up here in West Michigan (5 miles from my current home), there were 5 coal-fired power plants within a 20 mile radius. They've all been decommissioned except for the largest, the J H Campbell power plant north of Holland. That one was scheduled to be shut down this summer - until Dr. Coal in DC overruled Consumer's Energy Corporation, a company that is about as un-woke as they come but knows how to do basic accounting. So the Campbell plant continues to burn coal, and Michigan residents like me will have to pay for it.
“Under my administration, we will be slashing energy and electricity prices by half within 12 months, at a maximum 18 months" - riiggghhhtt - and Mexico handed us the cash to pay for that big beautiful wall, didn't they? Because gollee-gee, Trump wouldn't lie to us, would he? I mean, he's not like all those politicians who tell us a big pack of lies just to get themselves elected, right? <insert eye-roll emoji>
As for the Dems - I'm guessing they'll be one step closer to perfecting the art of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory in the 2026 election. We have by far the worst president in the history of this nation, and the Dems still manage to have a lower approval rating than he does - I see Schumer's approval rating is just below global thermonuclear war.
Hmm. Wonder what would happen if we stopped allowing elections to be bought?
Another great issue, Bill.
Love this: "Trump’s crusade against clean energy is obviously idiotic—windmills don’t cause cancer. But it’s more than idiotic—it’s the reason you’re paying more for electricity."
Could it be that cost is minor. Results is what people are paid for.
The last administration, in my opinion, was worst than the current one.
Where are the sensible minds?
Trump is just shockingly dumb period!
Shockingly dumb, shockingly corrupt, shockingly predictable. That's who Orange Julius Seizure is
Eliminate everything after the word “dumb” and you’d still be accurate
He is dumb about everything.